60/60 Review #43: Cool Hand Luke.

You could say this month has left me feeling lukewarm on the whole. So it's about time I found a film that cooled me off. This is the main film I'd been looking forward to this month, which is why I saved it for last. Thankfully, it didn't disappoint. There's really no story, per se. It's more of a character study. Luke (Paul Newman) is a man who will not conform to anything--society or the norms of the chain gang prison he's been put in. It's the story of his rise and fall.

As it's a character study, I'd like to discuss the acting first. If the acting in this type of film is bad, the film will mostly fail. Paul Newman is outstanding as Luke, and there are plenty of moments throughout the film that show this. One moment in particular that I believe exemplifies it is when he's playing the banjo after learning some news, and you can see the glistening of tears coming down his face without him outright sobbing. Also on tap is George Kennedy, who plays a man that is at first an adversary but soon a friend. He plays a southern (possibly Cajun?) man without the ability to read, but with a childlike fascination toward most things. And, yes, he won an Oscar for this role.

This movie had me fascinated from beginning to end--and let me tell you, that is a difficult task for a movie with almost no story. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that (no story) as a bad thing. Some movies do, some don't, and I typically don't enjoy those that don't. This one, however, really managed to keep me invested in these characters, which shows a large strength in its writing, acting, and directing.

There are some great visual cues in the film, as well. The main ones come from The Man With No Eyes, as the camera focuses on his sunglasses through the entire film. They symbolize him as a character, and there are some great shots through the reflection of those sunglasses. There are other interesting shots, as well, some of which might only be a second long.

On the whole, I really did love this movie. I know super positive reviews are not as interesting as the negative ones, and they're also more difficult to write. That being said, I really don't have much more to say. It has very strong writing, strong acting, strong directing, and a mostly solid pacing. I did start wearing down in the last 20 minutes, feeling its 2+ hours, but it wasn't bad enough to strike it against the overall film. So if you haven't checked it out yet, I'd recommend it.


Royale With Cheese

60/60 Extra: The Sting.

After I watched Butch Cassidy, I got quite a few recommendations to watch The Sting, another Newman-Redford pairing. Well, with it being labeled a comedy, and this being comedy month, I thought it a perfect time to check it out. And to top it all off, it's a con artist film, which are way up there with heist films (because they're essentially the same idea)... and I love those.

This one is about Johnny Hooker (Robert Redford), a rookie con man looking for revenge after a close friend and partner is killed. He seeks out Henry Gondorff (Paul Newman), a skilled grifter who used to work with the man that had been killed. Together they plan on pulling the perfect job, one to get some revenge and quite a bit of money off Doyle Lonnegan (Robert Shaw). Helping out are other grifters like J.J. (Ray Walston) and Twist (Harold Gould). But they have to stay careful, as a detective named Snyder (Charles Durning) is after Hooker, too.

I'd like to say straight-up that, while I was told the chemistry between the two leads was even stronger in this film, I have to disagree. I felt their bond was stronger in Butch Cassidy. However, I'm not saying that's a negative or a detractor from this film at all. The acting was still very strong in this film. Though I think it's particularly funny that, in the aforementioned western, Newman was the good looking charmer and Redford was the gruffer one. Here, they've switched that around. Redford is the charmer, and Newman is much more gruff.

I really liked how the whole film was edited into chapters like a book. Every section told its own part of the job, letting the audience know what was happening, step-by-step. I just thought that was a fun and creative way to organize the film.

The tone of the film kind of bounces between lighter fair (as it is labeled a comedy) and some darker bits that involve hitmen and death and all sorts of stuff. It really worked, keeping you on your toes. It was never something like an Oceans film, where you knew it was all part of the job and they would somehow come out on top. There was this more gritty element that really left you feeling uncomfortable in the sense that anything could really go wrong... but what if this is all part of the plan? That's something I loved about the movie. It kept me guessing.

The job itself was very layered, giving us multiple steps to get through to get it done. Like I said before, it was hard to figure out if what was going on was true or just part of the scam. There were double and even triple crosses going on. And although I know nothing about racetrack betting (which the scam centers around), I was easily able to follow the film, as the job wasn't so much about the details of the horse races as it was the scam itself. It allowed me to follow along easily.

Before I start sounding redundant, I'm just gonna end it there. I've seen plenty of heist and/or con artist films, but this one was damn near perfect. The acting is great. The story is great. The job itself is great. The way the film is edited together is great. There are plenty of nice twists and turns. And, of course, the final payoff makes it all worth it. This was such a fantastic film, and I'm so glad it was recommended to me.


Royale With Cheese

60/60 Review #6: Butch Cassidy And The Sundance Kid.

Due to Netflix, I had to skip around the month just slightly, but that's OK. I said from the beginning the middle films of each month might not be reviewed in the exact order I listed them (it was originally showing Good/Bad/Ugly next, but I've switched the list around to match the review order). So let's look at this newest one first by looking at what I've reviewed thus far. So far I've seen the bad (Plan 9); I've seen what could have been much better (Westworld); I've seen the "alright" (Close Encounters): I've seen the pretty good (Unforgiven); and I've seen the really good (Body Snatchers). I think it's about time I watch one that I just flat-out love.

Butch Cassidy (Paul Newman) and the Sundance Kid (Robert Redford) are two outlaw train robbers that go on the run once the man who owns the railway they keep hitting gets upset and hires the best lawman and tracker in existence. And when even that doesn't work, they travel--along with Etta Place (Katharine Ross)--to Bolivia to start anew. Though that doesn't exact meet their expectations, either.

This film is everything I love about the idea of a western: outlaws, bank heists, train robberies, horseback chases, gun fights, card games, spunky prostitutes, old time school teachers, Indian trackers, invincible lawmen, and a handful of wit. The story is pretty simple. It's pretty much a heist-gone-wrong film, and we all know I love my heist films. And once this particular heist goes wrong, the titular characters are pretty much on the run from then on.

The acting pretty much rests on the shoulders of Paul Newman and Robert Redford (and slightly Katharine Ross). Paul Newman is great as the "brain" and leader of the gang, smooth talking and without much of a care. Robert Redford is his "brawn," the better gunslinger who doesn't say much and, when he does, is awfully blunt. They're yin and yang, which means they're complete opposites yet can't exist without the other. Their chemistry is strong as they play off each other, such as when Paul Newman says something witty in response to Robert Redford's stoicism or bluntness.

I was also incredibly surprised by the cinematography. There are some great shots in this movie. Of course, if this film were made today, the landscapes would look even better, but that's not necessarily what I mean here. Just the placement of the camera or a certain shot is fantastic.

If there are any major negatives, it would be that some scenes tend to go on a little long, two in particular. First, the opening credits sequence wasn't quite my style, though I do give it props for creativeness. The biggest offense for me, though, was the picture montage around the hour mark that transitions between the two parts of the film (going from the States to Bolivia). Something about it just rubbed me the wrong way. I guess I kinda liked the idea of what they were doing, but it just went on a bit too long for my tastes. Still, the whole hour before that moment and the next 40-45 minutes after it was too great for that 5 minutes to bog down my opinion of the film too much. The other moment that maybe could have trimmed a few seconds was the bicycle sequence, but it was fun enough to where it didn't really bug me (especially in comparison to the picture montage).

The writing, of course, is solid. It was written by the same guy who wrote The Princess Bride, so you know there's some good dialogue involved (I know this one came first, but still). I think that's a good reason why the characters of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid work so well together--their given dialogue is so strong, and it's delivered well by the two leads.

I know I'm not saying much, especially in comparison to the other films I've reviewed for this list. The movie was a lot of fun, and I think it deserved the Oscars it won. I also have to say that--if you don't count Cars (and why would you?)--this film was my first Paul Newman film, so I'm really looking forward to Cool Hand Luke later on next year. So yeah, there were a couple things that I think I might have tweaked about this one, but the bulk of it far exceeds those complaints.


Royale With Cheese